28th April 2006, 10:47 AM
Quote:quote:When I first glanced through the contract it appeared to be suitable for situations when an archaeological contractor was employed directly by a developer, but potentially more problematic when the contractor was procured by, and through, a consultant on behalf of the developer. Any views on this ?
Quote:quote:The ICE Contract does not appear to be applicable in situations where the archaeological contractor is not directly employed by the developer - or is it ?
The ICE contract can be used in either case. The ideal situation is that the developer is the 'Employer', they separately employ someone else to act as the 'Consultant', and the field unit is the 'Contractor'. The Consultant is not a party to the contract. This is the standard ICE model and one that I have worked with for years very successfully.
However, bear in mind that the Employer is normally a company, while the Consultant has to be a named individual. A consultancy firm can act as the Employer, with one of their senior staff as the Consultant. The developer themselves could do the same thing. Neither position is ideal, but they both work under this contract.
If the consultancy firm acts as the Employer, then the actual developer is not a party to the contract. They will have a separate contractual arrangement with the consultancy firm - who will themselves be a Contractor under that contract. It is important for them to have appropriate insurance etc., which would be very different if they were acting in a solely consultancy role.
1man1desk
to let, fully furnished